NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LEONARDO RAMIREZ-PEREZ, No. 14-73476 15-70589 Petitioner, 16-71694 v. Agency No. A029-277-936 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 9, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,** Judge. Petitioner Jose Leonardo Ramirez-Perez conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) in immigration court in 1999. The immigration judge found that Ramirez-Perez had established good moral character, a requirement for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge found, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. however, that Ramirez-Perez failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence two requirements: (1) continual presence in the United States of ten years; and (2) that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen child. The immigration judge thus concluded that Ramirez-Perez did not qualify for cancellation of removal. After a petition for review to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and an untimely petition to our court, Ramirez-Perez was removed to Mexico in 2002. In 2014–2016, Ramirez-Perez filed three motions with the BIA, of which two were styled as motions to reopen and the other was styled as a motion to reconsider. The BIA denied all three motions. Ramirez-Perez timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo the BIA’s determination of purely legal questions and claims of due process violations in removal proceedings. Lopez-Urenda v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 788, 791 (9th Cir.), as amended (Nov. 25, 2003). We review the BIA’s denial of motions to reopen and reconsider for abuse of discretion. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts ‘arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law,’” or “fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). 1. In July 2014, Ramirez-Perez filed the first motion to reopen, alleging his 2 previous counsel, Kevin Bove, failed to render effective assistance in preparation for, during, and on appeal from his 1999 merits hearing. Ramirez-Perez argues that Bove’s failure to respond to his phone calls or prepare him to testify at the hearing, his inadequate questioning during the hearing, and his failure to obtain documentary evidence fell well below the standard of effective assistance, violating his Fifth Amendment right to due process. At the 1999 merits hearing, the record shows that Bove did not introduce records that established when Ramirez-Perez arrived in the United States; did not provide documentary evidence, such as a DNA test, supporting affidavits, or records of child support ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals